Last week, I acted as moderator for this year’s official Undergraduate Council (UC) Presidential Debate.

Debate? There was a debate?

Glad you asked. There was, in fact, a debate. It took place Wednesday, Dec. 5, more than 48-hours after voting had started. I don’t think the official Election Commission e-mail announcing the debate (“Come early to make sure you get a seat!”) was meant to be funny, but I’m sure to the 30 people that showed up, it was hilarious.

The problem is not, however, that attendance was low, or that this year only 2,181 people voted in the UC presidential election, the lowest turnout in the Council’s recorded history. The reason more than 60 percent of the student body didn’t vote was not because we’re lazy, too busy, or apathetic, but because it didn’t make a difference to us who won.

The winning ticket, Sundquist-Sarafa, garnered only 1,450 first-place votes, meaning only 27 percent of the undergraduate student body voted for our new president. 27 percent! One could argue that the reason for the low participation was because the Matthew L. Sundquist ’09 and Randall S. Sarafa ’09 ticket was the clear front-runner, being the only candidates with UC experience. A race is a race—anything can happen. In a place where anti-establishment is part of our middle name (Harvard Antiestablishmentliberalcesspool College), everyone supports the underdog (Red Sox), and everyone dances in their room naked to T-Pain whenever they get an A- (or is that just me?), didn’t the other candidates have a fighting chance?

The candidates were definitely interesting. In fact, in the amount of views of the “On Harvard Time” interviews with the three tickets were a strong indication that a lot of people were curious. According to YouTube, more than 2,500 people saw the Martel-Zimmermann interview; 2,040 people saw Willey-Snow’s; and 1,651 people Sundquist-Sarafa’s. Students were given an opportunity to really get to know the candidates not just from shaking their hands or running into them, freezing at the Science Center. More people watched the Martel-Zimmerman interview than voted in the entire election!

If it wasn’t the candidates, then what could it have been? We care about issues that inspire us, that worry us, that piss us off. The war in Iraq, the economy, abortion—these are the issues that drive people to vote. What issues do we feel that way about here? The UC is supposed to represent our interests. What if a candidate ran on pushing the administration for entirely free tuition? Pressuring the College to recognize and support the ROTC program? Representing students in the execution of the new General Education requirements? Speeding up the calendar reform implementation process? Guaranteeing more funding for student groups (not for alcohol, but for the Phillips Brook House to subsidize more undergraduate charity work, or for CityStep to get more buses to and from intercity Boston schools, or for a Jello-filled Jacuzzi for my blockmates)? Things would have been very different.

Instead, the Sundquist-Sarafa campaign ran on reforming the Ad Board, an issue which only concerns a small percentage of the student body. The Willey-Snow campaign ran on bringing cable TV to all the dorms, increasing shuttles, and reinstating party grants, which sound great, but so do free personal Zambonis. Unfortunately, we’re too smart for promises of free ice cream and water fountains filled with Dr. Pepper to guarantee a landslide. Finally, Martel-Zimmermann ran on the only truly exciting idea: a UC Standing Army. But since people still come up to me in the dining hall and ask if her running mate is a real person, I was inclined to count them out.

It’s arguable the UC doesn’t have the power to do anything substantive and, instead, that we have to be realistic. But “being realistic” is not something Harvard students should readily accept. “Being realistic” is a cop-out. Only by pressuring the administration to do something “unrealistic” can change actually occur.

Most people here care about the UC. People swear the UC doesn’t matter, yet countless numbers of people end up writing editorials about it. We want it to make a difference. But, like the debate I moderated, these campaigns ended up being more about personal attacks than the future of our school. We found ourselves not caring about who ended up in charge because, either way, none of the issues that affected our lives were going to change.

Next year, there will be no incumbents. Let’s hope someone runs on issues that could potentially make our lives as students. And when you get that email telling you to come early to the debates to make sure you get a seat, maybe you’ll take it just a little more seriously.



Derek M. Flanzraich ’10 is a government concentrator in Currier House. He is the Executive Producer of “On Harvard Time.”